TOWARDS GLOBAL DIALOGISM: TRANSCENDING ‘CULTURAL IMPERIALISM’ AND ITS CRITICS Huimin Jin Abstract: Cultural studies have developed from a domestic stage into the present international platform, and a new theoretical framework is accordingly demanded. In other words, international cultural studies should have its own theoretical platform corresponding to its internationality. Based mainly upon the dispute around ‘cultural imperialism,’ this article categorizes cultural studies into two modes: ‘modernity’ cultural studies and ‘post-modernity’ cultural studies. It analyzes their advantages and disadvantages respectively, suggesting the third mode of ‘globality’ cultural studies transcends the previous two: the tenet of which is a philosophy of global dialogism that sublates (aufheben) both modernity and postmodernity at one time. I. Globalization as a New Philosophy The term globalization is commonly used to characterize a variety of social and cultural phenomena such as: the heightened speed, volume, and facility of interactions among people across borders and irrespective of distance or geographical barriers; the intensifying interconnectedness and interdependence of local, regional, and national economies, and ecologies; the growth of international relations and expansion of transnational politics; the emergence of world culture in music, cinema, television, and other forms of popular culture; the expansion of networks both licit and illicit (e.g., criminal, terrorist) that exist independent of state or polity; and the rise of individuals identifying themselves as citizens, not of any specific nation, but as citizens of the world. This is what McLuhan (1962) Dr. HUIMIN JIN, Qujiang Chair Professor of Cultural Theory & Aesthetics at Shaanxi Normal University, Xi-an, and Chair Professor of Literary Theory at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China. Email: [email protected]. Journal of East-West Thought 6 HUIMIN JIN referred to as, the global village. Globalization, however, has another meaning which has increasingly come to be recognized as a second, higher (or meta) level of meaning: referring not simply to the object of study commonly associated with the term, but also, and more importantly, to a perspective to be employed: an approach to studying the types of contemporary social and cultural phenomena outlined above. Put another way, the process of globalization has quite naturally given rise to a philosophy of globalization: Globalization can therefore be understood as a new philosophical category, one that transcends the binary opposition of modernity and postmodernity. Globalization encompasses modernity as well as postmodernity, and to be precise, globalization includes the two of them simultaneously, not as individual entities, but as part of a dialectical system involving a complex, dynamic relationship between opposing forces, resulting in a new synthesis. This is a vital change, if not a revolution, in the spatialisation (Shields, 1991) of cultures and hence of importance to anyone concerned with the concepts of space and culture. Philosophy, as Weltanschauung, is always part of the world image, and a philosophy of globalization, geographically related, can then be considered part of the spatialisation of globalization, and may well be considered central to that spatialisation. In this exploration of the topic, I present a Chinese perspective and assessment of the canonical understandings of this development over the last two decades. This epochal proposition, which should have been developed by philosophers, is nevertheless, now alluded to us by sociologists. In the concluding chapter of The Consequences of Modernity, Anthony Giddens summarizes “One of the fundamental consequences of modernity … is globalisation. This is more than a diffusion of Western institutions across the world, in which other cultures are crushed. Globalisation - which is a process of uneven development that fragments as it coordinates - introduces new forms of world interdependence, in which, once again, there are no ‘others’ … Is modernity peculiarly Western from the standpoint of its globalising tendencies? No. It cannot be, since we are speaking here of emergent forms of world interdependence and planetary consciousness.” (Giddens, 1990: 175) Giddens does not deny the modernity aspect of globalization, that is, the imperial project spread to the whole world by Western institutions. He tends more, however, to see the failure of this grand project in its process of implementation and the interdependence between nations/states resulted from this failure - different from Giddens. We call this the Journal of East-West Thought TOWARDS GLOBAL DIALOGISM 7 ‘postmodernity’ dimension of globalization, and this is in a way what he states elsewhere that globalization will result in a “runaway world” (Giddens, 2002: xxxi). As regards globalization as ‘postmodernity’, John Tomlinson’s radically playful stance is likely to appall any scholar if he or she is seriously minded. In his groundbreaking monograph Cultural Imperialism (first published in 1991), Tomlinson seems to have an abundance of confidence to exterminate, once and for all, the view of globalization as ‘modernity’: Globalisation may be distinguished from imperialism in that it is a far less coherent or culturally directed process. For all that it is ambiguous between economic and political senses; the idea of imperialism contains, at least, the notion of a purposeful project: the intended spread of a social system from one centre of power across the globe. The idea of ‘globalisation’ suggests interconnection and interdependency of all global areas which happens in a far less purposeful way. It happens as the result of economic and cultural practices which do not, of themselves, aim at global integration, but which nonetheless produce it. More importantly, the effects of globalisation are to weaken the cultural coherence of all individual nation-states, including the economically powerful ones - ‘the imperialist powers’ of a previous era. (Tomlinson, 2001: 175) Tomlinson, however, cannot prove to us, even minimally, that globalization, regardless of its consequences, is simply a spontaneous process without any motivator. This would not be the case, unless globalization has nothing to do with human beings as agents. Obviously, Tomlinson’s mistake is to disregard the intentions to globalize with the consequences of globalization. He seems to be ignorant of the fact that ‘intention’ is subjective while ‘consequence’ is objective. Since globalization is driven by human beings with intentions, the ‘modernity’ aspect of it cannot be denied. Giddens’ term “runaway world,” if compared with Tomlinson’s radicalism, would be far better to describe globalization, because it not only verifies that someone is trying to control (intentionally) but at the same time sees that he or she fails to control the world (consequently). Borrowing a Japanese term, dochakuka, Roland Robertson calls globalization “glocalization,” a condensed form of global localization (Robertson, 1992: 173-174), by which he means that globalization is a process of interaction Journal of East-West Thought 8 HUIMIN JIN between the global and the local. “Its central dynamic involves the twofold process of the particularization of the universal and the universalization of the particular.” (Ibid: 177-178) Robertson’s approach to globalization, as we know it, is mainly from the perspectives of religion, ideology or in general, culture, and as such is more philosophically pertinent. In the context of globalization, we cannot speak only of the local, nor can we replace the local with the global, the dialectic of which indicates a philosophical question of universality and particularity appearing in any specific instance. Comparably with Robertson’s glocalization, Mimi Sheller and John Urry see that “All the world seems to be on the move” (Sheller and Urry, 2006: 207; also see Urry, 2000) and then propose a “Mobilities Paradigm” for the traditionally ‘static’ social sciences they identify. This paradigm, as they present it, is “aimed at going beyond the imagery of ‘terrains’ as spatially fixed geographical containers for social processes, and calling into question scalar logics such as local/global as descriptors of regional extent.” (Ibid: 209) However, it is not “simply a claim that nation-state sovereignty has been replaced by a single system of mobile power, of ‘empire’: a ‘smooth world’, deterritorialized and decentred, without a centre of power, with no fixed boundaries or barriers” ((Ibid: 209) as imagined by Hardt and Negri (2000). The philosophical implication of this paradigm of sociology is to break a sedentarism loosely derived from the philosopher Heidegger, who locates dwelling (wohnen) place “as the fundamental basis of human identity and experience and as the basic units of social research human identity.” (Sheller and Urry, 2006: 208-209) Simply put, the subject, or more broadly, the modernity, which is based upon ‘place.’ is coming to its demise. In a global context of, say, ‘mobilities,’ or the ‘liquid modernity’ (Bauman, 2000), or, in a glocalization “on the move” as said previously, a sociologist can no longer speak only of the local, nor can s/he replace the local with the global, the dialectic of which indicates a philosophical question of universality and particularity reified in any specific instance. To be brief, globalization in the vision of the current sociological studies which have already outlined